Which? has opened a major legal front against Qualcomm in the UK, asking the Competition Appeal Tribunal to decide whether the chipmaker abused a dominant market position and — if the claim succeeds — to recover roughly £480 million on behalf of up to 29 million UK smartphone buyers who purchased certain Apple and Samsung models between 1 October 2015 and 9 January 2024. The trial, listed for a five‑week hearing in London, focuses on allegations that Qualcomm enforced a “no licence, no chips” style policy and used its combined patent‑licensing and chipset businesses to extract inflated royalties that were passed through to consumers.
Either result will be consequential: for consumers, because the case directly targets the pricing mechanics behind everyday smartphones; for the industry, because it will either chill or entrench certain licensing designs; and for regulators and litigants worldwide, because it will inform the next wave of enforcement and collective litigation strategies. The CAT’s careful fact‑finding, the quality of disclosure, and the economic modeling presented by both sides will determine whether this case becomes an influential antitrust milestone or another jurisdictional chapter in a multi‑venue litigation saga.
Source: Techerati https://www.techerati.com/news-hub/...hich-over-alleged-anti-competitive-practices/
Background
The parties and the forum
Which? — the UK’s consumer champion — filed the collective action in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) as the class representative for millions of UK smartphone buyers. Qualcomm, a US‑based designer and licensor of modem and communications technology, faces allegations that span both its patent‑licensing practices and its chipset supply policy. The CAT’s public case record confirms the proceedings and the trial timetable, and Which?’s own press statements set out its claim and estimated damages.What Which? says happened
Which? alleges two core abuses. First, that Qualcomm refused to license its standard‑essential and related patents to other chipset makers in a way that deprived rivals of scale; and second, that Qualcomm conditioned supply of chips on licence agreements signed at the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) level — creating a bargaining posture in which device makers were charged royalties on every phone sold, whether or not Qualcomm silicon was used. Which? says those practices inflated handset costs that were ultimately borne by UK consumers, and it quantifies the class’s potential loss at about £480 million in aggregate, or roughly £17 per affected phone depending on models and purchases.The technical and commercial anatomy: how the dispute arises
Qualcomm’s dual business model
Qualcomm operates two tightly linked businesses that lie at the heart of this dispute:- Patent licensing — Qualcomm licenses a portfolio of cellular‑standard patents and other communications IP to device makers and component suppliers.
- Chip design and supply — Qualcomm also develops and sells modem/system‑on‑chip (SoC) products used in billions of mobile devices.
The “no licence, no chips” dynamic
The contested commercial posture is often described in shorthand as “no licence, no chips” (NLNC): the supplier requires a patent licence in order to obtain silicon, and licences are priced on terms that apply across all devices an OEM sells. Critics say the result can function like an extra per‑device tax even when Qualcomm’s chips are not used; Qualcomm and its defenders counter that licensing at the OEM level and conditioning sales is lawful and industry‑standard. This factual and legal tension is the core of the CAT’s fact‑finding mission.Legal context and precedent
UK procedural vehicle: collective proceedings at the CAT
Which? brought the case as a collective proceeding under the Competition Act 1998 and related EU law for the pre‑2021 period. Collective proceedings at the CAT allow opt‑out representation for large consumer groups where the tribunal certifies a class and authorises the representative. Which?’s filings, subsequent procedural rulings, and case management directions are publicly available on the CAT register. The tribunal has already issued multiple procedural directions since the claim’s registration.Comparative precedent: the United States
Qualcomm’s practices have previously been the subject of high‑profile litigation in the United States, most notably FTC v. Qualcomm. The Ninth Circuit in 2020 reversed a district court ruling that had found anticompetitive conduct and vacated injunctive remedies; the appeals court concluded the FTC had not satisfied the rule‑of‑reason burden to show Qualcomm’s OEM‑level licensing and NLNC policy unlawfully foreclosed competition. That decision remains a central reference point for Qualcomm’s defence: U.S. courts have, in past rounds, given legal cover to Qualcomm’s model on antitrust theory grounds even as other enforcement actions continued elsewhere.Regulatory actions and European litigation
Separately, competition authorities and courts outside the U.S. have imposed fines or engaged in litigation with Qualcomm over different episodes and theories. The European General Court largely upheld an EU antitrust penalty (with a modest reduction) in a separate 2019 proceeding that concerned below‑cost pricing to squeeze a competitor in an earlier era. Qualcomm also reached settlements and has seen some rulings overturned on appeal in other regulatory contests. These mixed international outcomes highlight how antitrust law and remedies can diverge by jurisdiction and the exact conduct at issue.Trial dynamics: what the UK hearing will decide
Phase 1 — liability
The five‑week trial listed in early October 2025 is framed as a liability phase: the CAT will determine whether Qualcomm held market power and — crucially — whether it abused that dominance under section 18 of the UK Competition Act 1998 (and, for pre‑2021 conduct, Article 102 TFEU). If the tribunal finds that Qualcomm unlawfully abused a dominant position, the case will move to a second phase to quantify damages. Which? has been clear that the immediate focus is establishing liability and causation.What Qualcomm says in defence
Qualcomm’s opening positions, as reported in court coverage, characterise its supply policy as “innocuous and lawful.” Defence counsel have pressed that Qualcomm’s licensing arrangements are legitimate business choices and that the company’s bargaining partners — global OEMs such as Apple and Samsung — exercised substantial negotiating power. Qualcomm denies systemic wrongdoing and will press legal and evidentiary arguments that the NLNC posture did not amount to an anticompetitive surcharge on rival chip suppliers in the UK market.Why this case matters — practical implications
For consumers
Which? frames the litigation as recovering overcharges passed down to end users. If liability and damages are established, tens of millions of UK smartphone purchasers could be included by default in the collective action, with per‑phone damages estimated by Which? at an average in the low‑tens-of‑pounds range (Which? has used an illustrative figure of ~£17 per phone depending on model and purchase channel). That outcome would be significant symbolically and financially, even if per‑consumer amounts are modest.For OEMs and supply chains
A finding against Qualcomm could reshape negotiating dynamics between IP licensors and device manufacturers. OEMs who previously accepted bilateral licensing packages may gain leverage, chip vendors could face new incentives to unbundle licensing, and contract design around standard‑essential patents (SEPs) might be rethought. The case also shines a light on a less‑glamorous but critical segment of the tech supply chain — the hardware suppliers and patent licensors who sit behind visible consumer brands.For regulators and litigation strategies
The suit is part of a broader wave of collective claims and regulatory probes in the UK challenging large tech firms across hardware, software and cloud markets. Recent and contemporaneous actions — including separate collective suits and CMA investigations into cloud licensing — suggest the UK is becoming an active battleground for antitrust enforcement against both visible platform firms and upstream component licensors. The result may push firms to review licensing practices globally, not only in the UK.Critical legal and evidentiary challenges
Burden of proof and market definition
Which? must show (1) Qualcomm held a dominant position in relevant markets, (2) that Qualcomm abused that dominance, and (3) that the abuse caused quantifiable loss to class members. Each element raises complex factual and economic questions: defining the relevant market (chipsets vs. patent licensing markets), establishing causal links between licensing prices and retail handset prices, and disentangling the bargaining strength and commercial choices of OEMs. Courts are cautious about speculative damages; the CAT will demand robust expert economics and disclosure.Parallel and prior decisions
Qualcomm’s favourable outcomes in U.S. appeals and mixed regulatory rulings in Europe will feature heavily in argument. Defendants will press that competitors, regulators, and courts have reached different conclusions in other forums, and that the NLNC policy is, at worst, a competition‑neutral commercial strategy. Which? will counter with UK‑specific facts, economic models, and evidence of consumer harm. The divergence in outcomes across jurisdictions does not guarantee success in the CAT but does show the case will turn on fine empirical detail and legal framing.Quantifying damages and the second phase
Even if Which? wins liability, the damages phase is procedurally and technically demanding. Estimating how much of a handset price was attributable to the alleged practice — net of other market forces and OEM bargaining — requires careful modeling. Expect competing econometric reports, contested disclosure over commercial contracts, and battles over the proper counterfactual. The overall £480 million figure is an aggregate estimate that will be heavily litigated.Strengths and weaknesses of Which?’s case — a pragmatic assessment
Strengths
- Scale and public profile: Which?’s consumer campaign frames the issue as a tangible consumer harm, mobilising public sympathy and simplifying complex claims into an understandable narrative (higher royalties passed on to buyers).
- Procedural optics: Collective proceedings reduce the barrier to consumer redress and concentrate evidence efficiently at the CAT.
- Documentary disclosure: The CAT’s disclosure regime can produce internal documents that may reveal negotiation dynamics, discounting, or incentives that support Which?’s economic theories.
Weaknesses and risks
- Jurisdictional precedents: U.S. appellate precedent (notably the Ninth Circuit) has been friendly to Qualcomm’s legal defenses on similar facts; while not dispositive in the UK, it provides substantive legal arguments Qualcomm will deploy.
- OEM bargaining power: Qualcomm will argue that powerful OEM customers negotiated terms and were not purely price‑taking victims — blunting a straight-line story of consumer pass‑through.
- Complexity of causation: Proving direct, quantifiable pass‑through from licensing terms to final consumer prices is difficult and often contested in competition damages litigation.
Broader policy implications and regulatory fallout
A test case for hardware‑side antitrust
Most recent antitrust headlines focus on platform‑level economies of scale and software ecosystems. A successful Which? claim would mark a significant pivot — a high‑profile victory against an upstream hardware and IP player — and could prompt fresh remedies or guidance on licensing practices for SEPs and chipset supply policies. Regulators may take signals from the CAT’s findings to craft interventions or industry guidance.Global ripple effects
Large OEMs and downstream retailers operate globally. A liability finding in the UK and a quantified damages award could stimulate parallel consumer or business claims elsewhere and encourage stronger regulatory scrutiny in other jurisdictions. Even lost claims can produce reputational and contractual tightening that changes industry behaviour over time.What to watch next (practical timeline and signals)
- Opening submissions and expert witness lists at the CAT — will set the tone for liability theories and core evidence.
- Disclosure orders and document productions — the content of internal Qualcomm and OEM materials could make or break factual narratives.
- Economists’ reports on pass‑through and counterfactual pricing — expect methodological skirmishes and Daubert‑style disputes about model reliability.
- Any out‑of‑court settlement signals — Qualcomm may judge the litigation risk and cost and consider resolution, especially if disclosure is damaging.
- Post‑liability damages trial scheduling — if the CAT finds in favour of Which?, the second stage will be its own multi‑month fight over numbers.
Conclusion
The Which? v Qualcomm trial in the Competition Appeal Tribunal is a high‑stakes, technically dense contest with consequences that extend beyond a single company or group of consumers. It stitches together long‑running legal debates over the permissible bounds of IP licensing, OEM contracting tactics, and the commercial interplay between chipmakers and device manufacturers. A ruling for Which? would signal that hardware‑side conduct can be a meaningful locus for consumer redress and regulatory scrutiny; a ruling for Qualcomm would reinforce the view that the NLNC model and OEM‑level licensing (at least in certain forms) can survive competitive scrutiny in the UK.Either result will be consequential: for consumers, because the case directly targets the pricing mechanics behind everyday smartphones; for the industry, because it will either chill or entrench certain licensing designs; and for regulators and litigants worldwide, because it will inform the next wave of enforcement and collective litigation strategies. The CAT’s careful fact‑finding, the quality of disclosure, and the economic modeling presented by both sides will determine whether this case becomes an influential antitrust milestone or another jurisdictional chapter in a multi‑venue litigation saga.
Source: Techerati https://www.techerati.com/news-hub/...hich-over-alleged-anti-competitive-practices/
